Tag Archives: ADS

Clifford S Burnes V. Saguaro Crest Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H031-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-04-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Clifford S Burnes Counsel —
Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners' Association Counsel John T. Crotty

Alleged Violations

SCHA Bylaws Article 2.1

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof that the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by not holding elections. The Bylaw states the annual meeting is for the purpose of 'electing or announcing the results of the election of Directors' and transacting 'other business' (which included dissolution), and the HOA was not required to hold elections if results could have been announced or if dissolution proceedings were underway.

Why this result: The Bylaws did not strictly require elections be held, and Petitioner failed to object to the board remaining in place to oversee the dissolution.

Key Issues & Findings

Annual meeting

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated Article 2.1 of the Bylaws by failing to hold Board of Directors elections at the 2021 annual meeting. Respondent argued the language ('for the purpose of electing or announcing the results') did not require elections and that the dissolution vote superseded the immediate need for elections, especially since no one objected at the meeting.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition was denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Bylaws, Election Dispute, Dissolution, Annual Meeting, Burden of Proof, Waiver
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092 et seq.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)
  • MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZONA LAW OF EVIDENCE § 5 (1960)
  • BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1220 (8th ed. 1999)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H031-REL Decision – 1035344.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:56 (51.8 KB)

23F-H031-REL Decision – 1049021.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:56 (114.7 KB)

Carolyn Wefsenmoe v. Summit View Homeowner’s Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H017-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-03-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Carolyn Wefsenmoe Counsel —
Respondent Summit View Homeowner's Association Counsel Chad M. Gallacher, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R’s Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3; Summit View Community Plat Notes

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the walls were built on the common area. Since HOA maintenance responsibility primarily attached to the common area, and the location of the walls relative to the lots remained unproven, the HOA was not found in violation of its maintenance obligations.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the walls were located in a common area. No survey evidence was presented to determine whether the walls were on the individual lots (Owner responsibility) or the common area (HOA responsibility).

Key Issues & Findings

HOA failure to maintain perimeter walls and improper charging of homeowners for repairs.

Petitioner alleged that the HOA (SVHA) violated CC&R Article XI, Sections 1, 2, and 3, and the Community Plat Notes by failing to maintain the subdivision perimeter walls and charging homeowners for repairs, arguing the walls abutted and were part of the Common Area (NAOS), making maintenance the HOA's responsibility.

Orders: Petitioner’s petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Community Plat Notes

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Maintenance, Perimeter Walls, CC&R, Common Area, Burden of Proof, NAOS, Lot Line Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 1
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 2
  • CC&R Article XI, Section 3
  • Summit View Plat Notes

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018596.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (52.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1018616.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (5.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1031301.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (53.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032541.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (258.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032542.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:26 (723.8 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032543.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (487.6 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032544.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:51:51 (3029.4 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032545.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (81.9 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032546.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:51:53 (3401.3 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1032547.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-16T00:51:54 (2346.1 KB)

23F-H017-REL Decision – 1035846.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:27 (114.5 KB)

Daniel Mayer v. Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H020-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2023-02-17
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Daniel Mayer Counsel —
Respondent Scottsdale North Homeowners Association, Inc. Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1812

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party after establishing that the Respondent HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1812 by improperly combining two separate expenditure proposals (roadway preservation and gate replacement) into a single vote on a ballot, failing to provide an opportunity to vote on each action separately. Respondent was ordered to refund the $500.00 filing fee and pay a $500.00 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Combining two separate proposed actions into a single vote action on a ballot.

The Respondent HOA combined two separate proposed expenditures ($30,000 total for roadway asset preservation and common area gate replacement) into one vote on a ballot sent to homeowners, violating statutory requirements that each proposed action must be voted upon separately.

Orders: Respondent must abide by A.R.S. § 33-1812; Respondent must refund the Petitioner's $500.00 filing fee; Respondent must pay a $500.00 civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 33-1812(A)(1)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Ballot, Combined Vote, Reserve Funds Access, Statutory Violation
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1812
  • A.R.S. § 10-3708
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1031122.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:38 (100.0 KB)

23F-H020-REL Decision – 1038504.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:40:38 (54.8 KB)

John Zumph v. Sanalina Homeowners Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222049-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-08-01
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome none
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner John Zumph Counsel —
Respondent Sanalina Homeowners Association Counsel Nick Eicher

Alleged Violations

Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)

Outcome Summary

The ALJ denied the petition, concluding that the Sanalina HOA did not violate its Bylaws when it removed Petitioner John Zumph from the Board of Directors. The tribunal held that a 'regular meeting' can occur even without the presence of a quorum necessary to conduct business, validating the HOA's decision to declare his office vacant after three consecutive absences.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the Bylaws. The ALJ determined that the meetings existed despite lack of quorum, and the Petitioner's intentional absences constituted an abuse of process and were not in the spirit of the bylaws.

Key Issues & Findings

Wrongful removal from the Board of Directors

Petitioner challenged his removal from the Board of Directors, arguing that his three consecutive absences from regularly scheduled meetings (July 8, 2021, September 9, 2021, and November 11, 2021) did not count because no quorum was met at those meetings, meaning the meetings did not exist.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
  • Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Board Removal, Quorum Dispute, Bylaw Interpretation, Director Absence, Regular Meeting Definition
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Sanalina Bylaws Article VII Section 1(d)
  • Sanalina Bylaws Article VI Section 3

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222049-REL Decision – 988629.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:26 (105.3 KB)

Katherine Belinsky v. Del Cerro Condos

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222046-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-14
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Katherine Belinsky Counsel —
Respondent Del Cerro Condos Counsel —

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1805(A)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1805(A), finding that the HOA and its property managers had made records reasonably available for examination.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required by A.A.C. R2-19-119. The evidence showed Respondent responded timely to requests, provided some documents, and offered Petitioner appointments to review other sensitive or older records in the office, which she failed to schedule.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to provide books, records and accounts

Petitioner alleged Respondent failed to provide required HOA records, including bank statements, invoices, and contracts, following requests made primarily in March 2022, thereby violating statute A.R.S. § 33-1805(A).

Orders: Petitioner's petition denied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Records Access, Statutory Violation, Burden of Proof, Special Assessment Dispute
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1805
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • State ex rel. Thomas v. Contes, 216 Ariz. 525, 527, 169 P.3d 115, 117 (App. 2007)
  • Marsoner v. Pima County, 166 Ariz. 486, 488, 803 P.2d 897, 899 (1991)

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 971256.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:19 (46.4 KB)

22F-H2222046-REL Decision – 983785.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:39:19 (114.6 KB)

Roberta J Stevenson-McDemott v. Four Palms Homeowners

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222033-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-07-08
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome loss
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Roberta J Stevenson-McDermott Counsel —
Respondent Four Palms Homeowners Counsel Araceli Rodriguez

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1258

Outcome Summary

The petition was denied because the Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving a violation of A.R.S. § 33-1258, as she had not made a proper written request for the documents since 2019, as required by the statute.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to make a request for records in writing as required by A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Key Issues & Findings

Access to Association Financial and Other Records

Petitioner alleged the HOA violated A.R.S. § 33-1258 by denying her access and copies of various financial records dating back to 2016. The HOA argued they provided financial summaries and offered in-person review, noting Petitioner failed to make a proper written request.

Orders: Petition denied. Respondent is directed to comply with A.R.S. § 33-1258 going forward upon a proper written request from Petitioner.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Financial Records, Written Request Requirement, HOA Governance, Condominium Act
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 967350.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:53 (46.5 KB)

22F-H2222033-REL Decision – 982397.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:53 (99.3 KB)

Brenda C Norman v. Rancho Del Lago Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221019-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-01-18
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Brenda C Norman Counsel —
Respondent Rancho Del Lago Community Association Counsel Mackenzie Hill, Esq.

Alleged Violations

Section 3.1(D)(3) of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

Petitioner was deemed the prevailing party and RDLCA was ordered to comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and refund the $500.00 filing fee. The specific remedy requested by Petitioner (ordering RDLCA to fine the neighbor or force light removal) was denied as the ALJ lacked statutory authority (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02) to grant that relief.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of CC&R regarding flood illumination direction and ARC approval process.

Petitioner alleged that Respondent (RDLCA) violated CC&R 3.1(D)(3) because a neighbor installed flood lights shining onto Petitioner's property without RDLCA approval (ARC approval). The ALJ found RDLCA in violation because the lights were never approved.

Orders: RDLCA must comply with CC&R Section 3.1(D)(3) and pay Petitioner her $500.00 filing fee. No civil penalty was levied.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, CC&R, Lighting, Architectural Review, Filing Fee Refund
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221019-REL Decision – 939490.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:38:38 (95.0 KB)

Steven Kramer vs. Camelback House, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121063-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-09-27
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Steven Kramer Counsel —
Respondent Camelback House, Inc. Counsel Emily Cooper, Esq.

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge found that the Respondent, Camelback House, Inc., violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C) by failing to properly and timely respond to the Petitioner's response to a Notice of Violation. Petitioner Steven Kramer was deemed the prevailing party and was awarded the reimbursement of his $500.00 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to properly respond to Petitioner's response to a Notice of Violation

The Respondent violated the statute by failing to provide a timely written response to the unit owner (Petitioner) within ten business days of receiving the unit owner's response to a Notice of Violation. The Tribunal also concluded that the original Notice of Violation failed to sufficiently identify the first and last name of the person who observed the violation, as required by the statute.

Orders: Respondent must reimburse the Petitioner the filing fees of $500.00 within 30 days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov, 216 Ariz. 195, 165 P.3d 173 (App. 2007)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA violation response time, notice of violation requirements, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1242(C)
  • Tierra Ranchos Homeowners Ass'n v. Kitchukov

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121063-REL Decision – 913417.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:39 (113.9 KB)

Michael E Palacios v. El Rio Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121053-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-08-13
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome false
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Michael E Palacios Counsel —
Respondent El Rio Community Association Counsel Quinten T. Cupps

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805; Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge denied the petition in its entirety, concluding that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof required to show that the El Rio Community Association violated statutory or community document requirements regarding access to records.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Issues & Findings

Failure to fulfill a records request

Petitioner, a member and Board Director, requested to inspect Association books and records on March 30, 2021. Petitioner alleged the Association failed to completely fulfill the request. The ALJ determined that Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate a violation of the governing statute or bylaws.

Orders: Petitioner's petition and request to levy a civil penalty against Respondent were denied. Respondent was not ordered to reimburse Petitioner's filing fee.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Records Request, HOA Bylaws, A.R.S. 33-1805
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1805
  • Association Bylaws Article 11.3
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2102
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199 et al.
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.01(D)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199.02
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 41-1092
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.04
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121053-REL Decision – 904187.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:37:22 (114.1 KB)

Gregory L Smith v. Mountain Bridge Community Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121037-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2021-06-11
Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone
Outcome partial
Filing Fees Refunded $1,500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Gregory L. Smith Counsel —
Respondent Mountain Bridge Community Association Counsel Nicole Payne, Esq.

Alleged Violations

A.R.S. § 33-1811
CC&R Article 11.3.2

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the claim of violating CC&R Article 11.3.2 (failure to negotiate in good faith) but was denied relief on the claim of violating A.R.S. § 33-1811 (conflict of interest). Petitioner was ordered reimbursed $500.00 for the filing fee.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to prove the A.R.S. § 33-1811 violation because the statute was interpreted by the Tribunal to require the action to involve compensation.

Key Issues & Findings

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Petitioner alleged the Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1811 because the HOA President failed to disclose a conflict of interest during the approval of his own flagpole. The Tribunal found the statute requires the decision to involve compensation, and Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof.

Orders: Petition denied as to a violation of A.R.S. 33-1811. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $1,000.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811

Failure to Negotiate Claim Resolution in Good Faith

Petitioner claimed Mountain Bridge failed to negotiate a resolution in good faith after he filed a claim notice. Mountain Bridge failed to communicate until approximately 35 days after the claim was noticed. The Tribunal found Respondent failed to negotiate in good faith.

Orders: Petitioner is deemed the prevailing party as to his claim of an Article 11 violation. Respondent must reimburse the $500.00 filing fee within 30 days. Tribunal declined to award a civil penalty.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • CC&R Article 11.3.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Conflict of Interest, Failure to Negotiate, Flagpole, Filing Fee
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 33-1811
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121037-REL Decision – 887461.pdf

Uploaded 2025-10-09T03:36:47 (121.4 KB)